Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Department of Mathematics
This solution manual has been constructed so that each chapter represents a
specific semester’s qualifying exam. Within each chapter, the problems are listed in
the order in which they originally appeared, and moreover, they have been transcribed
almost verbatim. The primary exception to this is the omission of hints.
Following the statement of each problem, the reader will find a list of “key terms.”
These are the important definitions and theorems relevant to the given solution. In
most cases, these are concepts or results that the test-taker is presumed to be knowl-
edgable of. As such, these concepts have been used freely throughout the solutions.
After the list of key terms, the reader will find a solution to the given problem.
These solutions should not be preferred over others, although some are canonical.
iii
Notation
Z := Integers
N := {n ∈ Z : n ≥ 1}
N0 := N ∪ {0}
R := Real numbers
C := Complex numbers
S + := S ∩ (0, ∞) (S ⊆ C)
D(z, r) := {w ∈ C : |z − w| < r} (z ∈ C, r > 0)
D̄(z, r) := {w ∈ C : |z − w| ≤ r} (z ∈ C, r > 0)
D0 (z, r) := {w ∈ C : 0 < |z − w| < r} (z ∈ C, r > 0)
D := D(0, 1)
D̄ := D̄(0, 1)
D0 := D0 (0, 1)
C(z, r) := {w ∈ C : |z − w| = r} (z ∈ C, r > 0)
T := C(0, 1)
| | := Lebesgue measure on Rk (k ∈ N)
E c := {x ∈ X : x 6∈ E} (E ⊆ X)
1 x ∈ E
1E (x) := (E ⊆ X)
0 x ∈ E c
`
:= disjoint union
B(x, r) := {y ∈ X : d(x, y) < r} (d a metric on X, r > 0)
iv
Contents
Notation iv
Index 47
Bibliography 49
v
CHAPTER 1
Spring 2004
As this holds for every triangle whose closed convex hull is contained in Ω, Morera’s
Theorem implies that F ∈ H(Ω).
Alternative Solution. This proof does not involve the use of Morera’s Theorem.
First note that since f is continuous and [0, 1] is compact, we may find M ∈ N such
that |f (t)| ≤ M , for every t ∈ [0, 1]. Now, fix z0 ∈ Ω. Since Ω is open, we may find
r > 0 such that D := D(z0 , r) ⊂ Ω, and therefore, D ∩ [0, 1] = ∅. In consequence, we
see that
1
For z ∈ D, define gz : [0, 1] → C by gz (t) := f (t)/[(t − z)(t − z0 )]. By (1.1.1), we
conclude that the collection each gz is well-defined, and moreover, |gz (t)| ≤ M/r2 ,
for every z ∈ D and t ∈ [0, 1]. From this, it follows that gz ∈ L1 ([0, 1]), for every
z ∈ D. Finally, as it is obvious that lim gz (t) = gz0 (t), for every t ∈ [0, 1], Lebesgue’s
z→z0
Dominated Convergence Theorem ensures that
Z 1 Z 1
f (t) f (t)
(1.1.2) lim dt = 2
dt.
z→z0 0 (t − z)(t − z0 ) 0 (t − z0 )
Problem 1.2. Let Ω := {z ∈ C : 1 < |z| < 2}. Show that there does not exist a
sequence {Pn } of polynomials in z such that Pn (z) → 1/z uniformly, for every z ∈ Ω.
2
Z ∞
dx
Problem 1.3. Evaluate .
0 1 + x7
z − z0 1 2πi
= 2πi lim 7 7
= 2πi d 7 ¯¯ = 6.
z→z0 z − z0 dz
z z=z 7z0
0
¯ ¯
¯ R ¯ R
Now, since R > 1, we have ¯ 1+(Reit )7 ¯ ≤ R7 −1
, for all t, whence
¯Z 2π ¯ Z 2π
¯ 7 iReit dt ¯ Rdt 2πR
¯ ¯ 7
¯ ¯ ≤ = .
¯ 0 1 + (Reit )7 ¯ 0 R7 − 1 7(R7 − 1)
R 2π iReit dt
Thus, 0
7
1+(Reit )7
→ 0, as R → ∞. Furthermore,
Z Z 2π Z R Z R
7 iReit dt z02 dr dx
(1.3.2) f (z)dz = − 2 7
+
CR 0 1 + (Reit )7 0 1 + (z0 r) 0 1+x
7
Z 2π Z
7 iReit dt ¡ 2
¢ R dx
= + 1 − z0 .
0 1 + (Reit )7 0 1+x
7
6πi 8πi πi πi
z06 − z08 = e 7 −e 7 = −e− 7 + e 7 = 2i sin(π/7).
1See [RUD, 217 - 218] for a brief discussion on what is meant by a sum of paths.
3
Problem 1.4. Let f : [0, ∞) → C be a Lebesgue measurable function satisfying
(a) Show that for every z ∈ Ω, the function gz : [0, ∞) → C defined by gz (t) :=
eitz f (t) is in L1 ([0, ∞)).
R∞
(b) Prove that the map F : Ω → C defined by F (z) := 0
gz (t)dt is holomorphic
in Ω.
= 2te−tk0 ,
4
for some k0 > k, since [z0 , z] ⊂ D̄(z0 , r/2) is a compact subset of Ω.2 By the hypothesis
(†), we find that
¯ −tk ¯
(1.4.2) ¯te 0 f (t)¯ ≤ ate−(k0 −k)t ∈ L1 ([0, ∞)).
Key terms: Lebesgue measure, Lebesgue measurable set, negligible set, complete
measure space.
Solution. (⇒) As A has Lebesgue measure zero, it follows from the very definition
of Lebesgue (outer) measure that, for every n ∈ N, we may find a sequence {In,m }∞
m=1
S P 1
S
of open intervals such that A ⊂ m In,m and m |Im,n | < n . Put Un := m In,m .
Then Un is open, being the union of open sets. Since A ⊆ Un , for each n, it must be
T P
that A ⊆ n Un . Now, by countable subadditivity, |Un | ≤ m |In,m | < n1 , for each
n ∈ N, whence |Un | → 0, as n → ∞.
(⇐) Let {Un } be the sequence of open sets given by the hypothesis of this impli-
T
cation. Observe that 0 ≤ | m Um | ≤ |Un |, for every n. Since |Un | → 0, as n → ∞ (by
2This is a standard way to circumvent the Mean-Value Theorem, which is unavailable for
complex-valued functions.
5
T T
assumption), it must be that | m Um | = 0. Now, m Um is Lebesgue measurable, be-
ing the countable intersection of open (and therefore Borel) sets. Thus, A is Lebesgue
measurable, since it is the subset of a set of measure zero and since Lebesgue measure
is complete. Finally, A has measure zero, by monotonicity.
¤
from which it follows that ess sup f = ∞, since |(0, bM )| = bM > 0. Therefore,
f 6∈ L∞ ([0, 1]). So, the inclusion of (a) is strict in this case.
³ ´
1 1
Now, fix 1 ≤ q < p < ∞ and let r ∈ p , q . Notice that 1 − qr > 0, while
1 − pr < 0. So,
Z 1 ¯ ¯q Z 1
¯1¯ 1 ¯
1−qr ¯1 1 1
¯ ¯ dx = lim x −qr
dx = lim x = lim (1−t 1−qr
) = ,
¯ xr ¯ t→0+ t t→0+ 1 − qr t t→0+ 1 − qr 1 − qr
0
while
Z 1 ¯ ¯p Z
¯1¯ 1
1 ¯1 1
¯ ¯ dx = lim x−pr dx = lim+ x1−pr ¯t = lim+ (t1−pr − 1) = ∞.
¯ xr ¯ t→0+ t→0 1 − pr t→0 pr − 1
0 t
Thus, 1/xr ∈ Lq ([0, 1])\Lp ([0, 1]), showing the inclusion is strict, in this case as well.
(c) One can construct a multitude of trivial examples easily: merely take X :=
any set, A := any σ-algebra on X (one may pick the power set of X for concreteness),
and finally, µ := the zero measure on X (i.e., µ(A) = 0, for all A ∈ A ).
6
Of course, a nontrivial example is to be sought out. Perhaps, the simplest such
example is to take X := N, A := the power set of N, and µ := counting measure.
P
Here if f ∈ Lq (X), then by definition ∞ q
n=1 |f (n)| < ∞. Consequently, we may
converges to 0 in the p norm. Prove that we may find a subsequence {fnk } such that
fnk → 0 a.e.
7
Prove that f is constant.
8
CHAPTER 2
Fall 2004
Z Z "∞ # ∞ Z
∞ ∞ X X ∞
−[x] −[x]
e dx = e 1[n,n+1) (x) dx = e−[x] 1[n,n+1) (x)dx
0 0 n=0 n=0 0
∞ Z
X ∞ ∞
X
−n
= e 1[n,n+1) (x)dx = e−n = e/(e − 1).
n=0 0 n=0
(b) Put I := [0, π/2]. Since integrals over sets of measure zero are 0, we find that
Z π/2 Z Z Z Z
f (x)dx = + f (x)dx = cos xdx + sin xdx
0 I\Q I∩Q I\Q I∩Q
Z Z Z
= cos xdx = cos xdx + cos xdx
I\Q I\Q I∩Q
Z π/2
= cos xdx = 1.
0
Note that the above functions are measurable, since in a complete measure space we
may arbitrarily redefine functions over sets of measure zero and retain measurability.
¤
9
Problem 2.2. (a) Does the function
x sin 1 0 < x ≤ 1
x
f (x) :=
0 x=0
for each n = 1, ..., N − 1, the total (or absolute) variation TN corresponding to this
partition satisfies
N
X −1 ¯ ¯
¯ 1 1 ¯
TN ≥ ¯ π +π(N −n)
(−1)N −n − π
+π[N −(n−1)]
(−1)N −n+1 ¯
2 2
n=2
N
X −1 N
X −1
1 1 1
¡ 1 1
¢
(2.2.1) = π
+π(N −n)
+ π
+π[N −(n−1)]
≥ π N −n+1
+ N −n+2
2 2
n=2 n=2
N
X −1 N
X
2 2
≥ π(N −n+2)
= πn
.
n=2 n=3
Letting our partitions become finer and finer, one version of the Riemannian theory
R 50
of integration ensures the sum on the right converges to 0 ex dx = e50 − 1. On the
other hand, the left sum converges to the total variation.
Rb
More generally, the above argument shows that one has Var[a,b] f = a
|f 0 (x)| dx,
for every continuously differentiable function f on a compact interval [a, b].
¤
10
Problem 2.3. Suppose f ∈ H(Ω\ {0}) and that 0 is either a pole of order m for
f or a removable singularity whose removal results in 0 being a zero of order m for
f . Show that 0 is a first order pole of f 0 /f having residue either −m or m.
Problem 2.4. Show that a nonconstant entire function maps the plane onto a
dense subset of the plane.
(2.4.1) |f (z) − z0 | ≥ r,
1
for every z ∈ C. This implies that the function g : C → C defined by g := f −z0
1
is entire. Now, (2.4.1) also implies that |g| ≤ r
< ∞, and so, Liouville’s Theorem
ensures that g is constant. This, in turn, forces f to be constant. (Specifically,
1
f= c
+ z0 , where g = c.) This contradiction implies f (C) is dense in the plane.
¤
11
(a) Prove that f must be constant.
(b) Is the boundedness condition imposed on Ω essential?
Now, since f is zero-free, we evidently have 1/f ∈ C(Ω̄) ∩ H(Ω). Consequently, the
Maximum Modulus Principle applies to 1/f , and therefore,
Problem 2.6. Does there exists a Lebesgue measurable subset E of R such that
|E∩I|
|I|
= 12 , for every interval I ⊂ R.
12
Proof. Assume for a moment that the lemma holds for measurable sets having
finite measure. For each n ∈ N, put En := E ∩ B(0, n). Each En has finite measure,
being a subset of a set of finite measure, namely B(0, n). Thus, the lemma applies to
|En ∩ B(x, r)|
each En . For each n, let An be the set of points x ∈ En such that lim
r→0 |B(x, r)|
exists and is equal to 1. Likewise, let Bn be the set of points x ∈ Rk \En for which
the limit exists equal to 0. Since the lemma is assumed to hold for finite measured
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ T
sets, we have that ¯Rk \An ¯ = 0 and ¯Rk \Bn ¯ = 0, for each n. Put A := ∞
n=1 An and
T∞ ¯ k ¯ ¯ k ¯
B := n=1 Bn and notice that ¯R \A¯ = ¯R \B ¯ = 0, being the countable union of
null sets.
S∞
Fix x ∈ A. Since En ∩ B(x, r) ⊆ En+1 ∩ B(x, r), for all n, and since n=1 En ∩
B(x, r) = E ∩ B(x, r), we conclude that
Notice that the quantity on the left is well-defined, since 0 < |B(x, r)| < ∞. As
¯ ¯
¯ |EN ∩B(x,r)| ¯
x ∈ A ⊆ AN , we may find r0 > 0 such that 0 < r < r0 implies ¯ |B(x,r)| − 1¯ < ²/2.
¯ ¯
¯ ¯
This fact along with (2.6.2) and the triangle inequality shows that ¯ |E∩B(x,r)|
|B(x,r)|
− 1 ¯ < ²,
|E ∩ B(x, r)|
whenever 0 < r < r0 . Hence, lim exists and is equal to 1 for every x ∈ A.
r→0 |B(x, r)|
|E ∩ B(x, r)|
In a similar (in fact, easier) fashion, we see that lim exists and is equal
r→0 |B(x, r)|
to 0 for every x ∈ B. Let F and G be for E and Rk \E as An and Bn are for En
and Rk \En , respectively. Then we have just proved that A ⊆ F and B ⊆ G so that
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯
Rk \F ⊆ Ac and Rk \G ⊆ B c , and therefore, ¯Rk \F ¯ = ¯Rk \G¯ = 0.
The above argument guarantees that it suffices to prove the lemma with the extra
condition that |E| < ∞. In this case, put
Z
1
vr (x) := |1E (y) − 1E (x)| dy
|B(x, r)| B(x,r)
13
for 0 < r and x ∈ Rk . Since E has finite measure, 1E ∈ L1 (Rk ), whence almost every
point of Rk is a Lebesgue point of 1E ; i.e., lim vr (x) = 0, for a.e. x ∈ Rk .
r→0
Case 1: x ∈ E. Then |1E (y) − 1E (x)| = 1E c (y), and therefore,
|E c ∩ B(x, r)| |B(x, r)| − |E ∩ B(x, r)| |E ∩ B(x, r)|
vr (x) = = =1− (∀r > 0).
|B(x, r)| |B(x, r)| |B(x, r)|
Case 2: x ∈ E c . Then we directly have
|E ∩ B(x, r)|
vr (x) = (∀r > 0).
|B(x, r)|
Since lim vr (x) exits and is equal 0 for a.e. x ∈ Rk , the proof is complete.
r→0
¤
Proof. Since Rk is the disjoint union of E and E c , either |E| > 0 or |E c | > 0.
In the former case, the preceding lemma implies the existence of an x ∈ E such that
|E ∩ B(x, r)|
lim = 1. Thus, we may find some r > 0 such that 1 − ε < |E∩B(x,r)|
|B(x,r)|
. So,
r→0 |B(x, r)|
we are finished with this situation.
If, however, |E c | > 0, then applying the preceding lemma again shows that there
|E ∩ B(x, r)|
exists an x ∈ E c such that lim = 0. So, we may find some r > 0 such
r→0 |B(x, r)|
that ε > |E∩B(x,r)|
|B(x,r)|
. This finishes the proof.
¤
Returning to Problem 2.6, the answer is no. To see this, we simply take k = 1
1
and ε = 2
in the preceding proposition.
¤
2
x − y2
(x, y) 6= (0, 0)
2 2 2
Problem 2.7. Let f (x, y) := (x + y ) .
0 (x, y) = (0, 0)
(a) Show that
Z 1 Z 1 Z 1 Z 1
dx f (x, y)dy 6= dy f (x, y)dx.
0 0 0 0
14
(b) To save Fubini’s Theorem, use polar coordinates to verify that
Z 1 Z 1
|f (x, y)| dxdy = ∞.
0 0
Z Z
dx f (x, y)dy,
A B
R
is the Lebesgue integral of the function given by F (x) := B
f (x, y)dy, provided this
function is well-defined and Lebesgue integrable. Similarly, for the other iterated
integrals in (a). In our present situation,
Z µ ¶
1
∂ y y ¯¯y=1 1
F (x) := dy = = ,
0 ∂y x2 + y 2 x2 + y 2 y=0 x2 + 1
so that the measurability of F is evident. (F is, in fact, continuous on (0, 1].) Thus,
Z 1 ¯1
F (x)dx = arctan x¯0 = π/4.
0
On the other hand, since f (x, y) = −f (y, x), we see that the remaining iterated
integral exists and evaluates to −π/4.
15
© ª
(b) Note that the circular sector S = reiθ : 0 ≤ r ≤ 1, 0 ≤ θ ≤ π/2 is contained
in the rectangle R = {(x, y) : 0 ≤ x, y ≤ 1}. Thus,
Z 1 Z 1 Z Z
|f (x, y)| dxdy = |f (x, y)| dxdy
0 0 R
Z Z
≥ |f (x, y)| dxdy
S
Z "Z #
1 π/2
= |f (r cos θ, r sin θ)| dθ rdr
0 0
Z ¯ ÃZ ¯ !
¯ cos 2θ ¯
1 π/2
= ¯ ¯
¯ r2 ¯ dθ rdr
0 0
Z 1 ÃZ π/4 Z π/2 !
1
= − cos 2θdθ dr
0 0 π/4 r
Z 1
1
= dr
0 r
= ∞.
Z Z 2π
1 f (ξ) 1 f (z + reit )
f (z) = dξ = (rieit dt)
2πi γr,z ξ − z 2πi 0 (z + reit ) − z
Z 2π
1
= f (z + reit )dt,
2π 0
and so,
Z
1 2π ¯ ¯
(2.8.1) |f (z)| ≤ ¯f (z + reit )¯ dt.
2π 0
16
Integrating both ends of (2.8.1) with respect to rdr over [0, R] and appealing to
Fubini’s Theorem gives
Z R ·Z 2π ¸
R2 1 ¯ ¯
|f (z)| ≤ ¯f (z + re )¯ dt rdr
it
2 2π 0 0
Z
1
(2.8.2) = |f (z + w)| dλ2 (w)
2π E
Z
1 1
≤ |f | = kf k1 ,
2π R2 2π
where E := {(x, y) ∈ D(0, r) : 0 < x, y} and λ2 is Lebesgue measure in R2 . Since
kf k1
(2.8.2) is clearly equivalent to |f (z)| ≤ πR2
, which holds for all z ∈ C and R > 0, we
may deduce that |f (z)| = 0, for all z. Equivalently, f ≡ 0.
¤
17
CHAPTER 3
Spring 2005
Let f (z) be the function in the integrand of (3.1.1). The quadratic formula shows
√ √
that f has simple poles at z0 = 2 − 2 3 and z1 = 2 + 2 3. Among these, z0 lies
in the region bounded by the image of γ, while z1 lies outside this region. Thus, the
integral on the far right of (3.1.1) is equal to
√
1 2πi 3πi
2πiRes(f, z0 ) = 2πi lim (z − z0 )f (z) = 2πi lim = =− .
z→z0 z→z0 z − z1 z0 − z1 6
Hence, the coefficient of the z −1 term is Res(z n e10/z , ∞) = 10n−1 /(n − 1)!.
18
(c) Observe that
∞
X ∞
X
2 2n+1 2n+1 2 k
exp(z )/z = (1/z ) (z ) /k! = z 2k−2n−1 /k!.
k=0 k=0
that this collection has the property that every x ∈ [0, 1] belongs to at least n of the
n
Ej , where n ≤ m. Prove that |Ej | ≥ m
, for some j.
The appearance of the strict inequality is the sought contradiction, and therefore, the
desired conclusion follows.
¤
19
Problem 3.4. Let f ∈ L1 (X, µ). Prove that for every ² > 0, there exists δ > 0
such that ¯Z ¯
¯ ¯
¯ f dµ¯ < ²,
¯ ¯
A
20
© 1
ª
z :1− < z < 1 . Thus, all the zeros of the nonconstant function f must lie in
n
¡ ¢
the compact set D̄ 0, 1 − n1 . Since the zero-set of f contains no limit point of D, we
conclude (by Bolzano-Weierstrass) that f has only finitely many zeros, say {z1 , ..., zk }.
By iterated use of Theorem 10.18 in [RUD], we may write
21
all z ∈ Ω. As f (z) − w is a continuous mapping of the connected region Ω into the
discrete space 2πiZ, it must be that f − w = 2πin, for some fixed integer n, whence
f (z) = w + 2πn. That is, f is constant.
(b) As the real and imaginary parts of f satisfy the same conditions as f does, we
may without loss of generality assume that f is real-valued. As such, on each closed
disk D̄(0, N ), N ∈ N, f is the real part of a holomorphic function that is defined
uniquely up to a pure imaginary additive constant (see [RUD, 235 - 236]). Adjusting
these constants at each radius, we may conclude that f is the real part of an entire
function, say F = f + iv. Now, since the exponential function is nonnegative and
strictly increasing on the real axis, we find that
¯ F ¯ ¯ f +iv ¯ ¯ f ¯ ¯ iv ¯ ¯ f ¯
¯e ¯ = ¯e ¯ = ¯e ¯ ¯e ¯ = ¯e ¯ = ef ≤ e|f | ≤ eM ,
Key terms: power series, Uniqueness Theorem for Holomorphic Functions, uniform
convergence.
Solution. It turns out that the assumption that I be compact is not essential. So, we
P
will dispense with it. Now, for each p ∈ I, let ∞ n
n=0 cn (p)(x − p) be the convergent
power series representation of f about p, given by the hypothesis, and let Rp denote
P
the radius of convergence of this power series. Define fp (z) := ∞ n
n=0 cn (p)(z − p) ,
22
elementary power series theory, we have that the series for fp converges uniformly and
absolutely on Dp := D(p, rp ). Note that fp (x) = f (x), for every x ∈ I ∩ [p − rp , p + rp ].
S
Put Ω := p∈I Dp and define F : Ω → C by F (z) := fp (z), whenever p ∈ I is such
that z ∈ Dp . Provided that F is well-defined, it is obvious that F ∈ H(Ω), since F is
representable by a power series about every point. Furthermore, that F |I ≡ f is also
self-evident, by construction. Hence, we seek to show that F is well-defined.
Suppose p, q ∈ I are such that z ∈ Dp ∩ Dq . Without loss of generality, we may
assume that p < q. Note that the triangle inequality ensures that q − p < rq + rp . So,
if there were an x with p < x < q and x 6∈ Dp ∪ Dq , then we would have
q − p = (q − x) + (x − p) ≥ rq + rp > q − p.
(0, 1]. For each k ∈ N, let pk , qk ∈ N be relatively prime positive integers such that
rk = pk /qk . Define fk : [0, 1] → R by fk (x) := exp[−(pk − xqk )2 ]. Prove that fk → 0
in measure, as k → ∞, yet, for each x ∈ [0, 1], the pointwise limit of the the sequence
{fk (x)}∞
k=1 does not exist.
23
Proof. Since gcd(a, b) = 1, we may find m, n ∈ Z such that am + bn = 1. Now,
combined with the (assumed) fact that a/b = c/d, we get
24
Proof. It is a matter of definition (and the uniqueness element of Lemma 3.8.1)
that qk = ρ2 (rk ). For M ∈ N, put TM := {r ∈ Q ∩ (0, 1] : ρ2 (r) ≤ M }. Then TM =
`M
N =1 SN , where the SN are as above. Since |SN | ≤ N and TM is the disjoint union,
P
we get |TM | ≤ M N =1 N = M (M + 1)/2. In particular, TM has finite cardinality for
each M . So, for each M ∈ N, the fact that k 7→ rk is injective guarantees that we
may set K := max {k ∈ N : rk ∈ TM }. Thus, for each k > K, rk 6∈ TM , and therefore,
qk > M . This proves the corollary.
¤
Lemma 3.8.5. Given x ∈ (0, 1] and prime n, there exists ln such that |x − rln | <
1/qln .
¡ j−1 ¤ `
Proof. Put Ij := n
, nj , for j = 1, ..., n. Then (0, 1] = nj=1 Ij . So, x ∈ Ij , for
some j, and therefore |x − j/n| < 1/n. By hypothesis, the rational number j/n is rln
for a unique ln ∈ N. Since n is prime gcd(j, n) = 1, and so, if rln = j/n, then pln = j
and qln = n. Hence, |x − rln | = |x − j/n| < 1/n = 1/qln .
¤
We are finally prepared to tackle the proof of Problem 3.8. Notice that we must
formally verify that each fk is well-defined, but this is handled by Corollary 3.8.2.
Now, fix x ∈ (0, 1]. Choose ² so that 0 < ² < x. Since there are infinitely many
rational numbers in (0, ²), we may find a subsequence {rkm } ⊂ (0, ²). Notice that
0 < |x − ²| < |x − rkm |, for each m. Multiplying through by qkm , squaring, and then
taking exponentials gives fkm (x) < exp[−qkm (x − ²)2 ]. Letting m → ∞ and appealing
to Corollary 3.8.4 shows that fkm (x) → 0.
On the other hand, Lemma 3.8.5 yields a (different) subsequence {rln } such that
|x − rln | < 1/qln , for each n. In consequence, −1 < −(pln −xqln )2 so that fln (x) > 1/e.
It follows that the pointwise limit fk (x) cannot exist. And this is true of every
x ∈ (0, 1].
It remains to be seen that the fk converge in measure to the zero function. To this
end, let 0 < ² < 1 be given. Observe that if x ∈ (0, 1] is such that exp[−(pk − xqk )2 ] =
p
|fk (x)| > ², then |x − rk | < (1/qk ) ln(1/²). Thus, {x : fk (x) > ²} ⊆ (rk −δk , rk +δk ),
25
p
where δk := (1/qk ) ln(1/²). Hence, |{x : |fk (x)| > ²}| ≤ |(rk − δk , rk + δk )| = 2δk .
By Corollary 3.8.4, δk → 0 as k → ∞, whence we may choose K so large so that
2δk < ², for every k ≥ K. And so, fk → 0 in measure.
¤
Problem 3.9. Let (X, A , µ) be a finite measure space and f a nonnegative mea-
X∞
1
surable function on X. Then f ∈ L (X) if and only if 2n µ(Sn ) < ∞, where
n=0
Sn := {x ∈ X : f (x) ≥ 2n }.
∞ ∞
" ∞ # ∞ X ∞ ∞ X ∞
X X X X X
n n n
2 1Sn = 2 1Tm = 2 1Tm an,m = 2n 1Tm an,m
n=0 n=0 m=n n=0 m=0 m=0 n=0
∞
Ãm−1 ! ∞ ∞ ∞
X X X X X
n m m
= 2 1Tm = (2 − 1) 1Tm ≤ 2 1Tm ≤ f 1Tm
m=0 n=0 m=0 m=0 m=0
à ∞
!
X
= f· 1Tm ≤ f · 1X = f ∈ L1 (X).
m=0
26
CHAPTER 4
Fall 2005
(a) State and prove the Schwarz lemma for holomorphic self-maps of D.
(b) From (a), conclude that any conformal automorphism of D that fixes zero
must be a rotation.
and
(4.1.2) |f 0 (0)| ≤ 1.
If equality holds in (4.1.1) for some z ∈ D0 or if equality holds in (4.1.2), then there
exists u ∈ T such that f (z) = uz, for every z ∈ D.
Proof. Since f has a zero at 0, it follows that the map f (z)/z has a removable
singularity there. (Write f as power series about the origin and factor.) Thus, there
exists g ∈ H(D) such that f (z) = zg(z). Now, fix z ∈ D\ {0}. Then for any r such
that |z| < r < 1 (such an r exists, as D is open), we have, by the Maximum Modulus
Principle, that
¯ ¯
|f (z)| ¯ ¯ ¯f (reiθ )¯ 1
= |g(z)| ≤ max ¯g(re )¯ = max
iθ
≤ ,
|z| θ θ r r
27
since |f (z)| ≤ 1. Letting r → 1 and multiplying through by |z|, gives |f (z)| ≤ |z|,
provided z ∈ D\ {0}. Since this inequality is evidently also true at z = 0, we get
(4.1.1). Now, (4.1.2) follows from the fact that f 0 (0) = g(0), by the product rule.
Finally, if equality holds in (4.1.1) for some z ∈ D0 or if equality holds in (4.1.2),
then application of Maximum Modulus Principle to g again shows that f (z)/z is a
constant of unit modulus.
(b) Since f is conformal automorphism of D, f −1 is as well (see Theorem 10.33 in
[RUD]). Thus, f and f −1 both satisfy the hypothesis of the Schwarz Lemma, and
therefore,
¯ ¯
(4.1.3) |f 0 (0)| , ¯(f −1 )0 (0)¯ ≤ 1.
by the Chain Rule. Combining (4.1.3) and (4.1.4), we must have |f 0 (0)| = 1, allowing
us to deduce from the second part of the Schwarz Lemma that f is a rotation.
¤
a−z
Problem 4.2. Let a ∈ D and define fa (z) := , for z ∈ D̄.
1 − āz
(a) Show that fa is an automorphism of D and is its own inverse.
(b) Show that for every conformal automorphism f of D there exists u ∈ T and
a ∈ D such that f = u · fa .
(c) Verify that (b) implies that every conformal automorphism of D extends to
a homeomorphism of D̄.
(d) Show that the values a and u are uniquely determined by f .
Key terms: conformal mapping, Maximum Modulus Principle, Chain Rule, home-
omorphism.
28
Solution. (a) If a = 0, then fa (z) = −z, and so, (a) is immediate, in this case. So,
we may assume that a ∈ D\ {0}. Note that this forces ā−1 ∈ C\D̄. The computation
a−z a(1−āz)−(a−z)
a − 1−āz 1−āz a − |a|2 z − a + z
(fa ◦ fa )(z) = a−z = =
1 − ā · 1−āz 1−āz−ā(a−z)
1−āz
1 − āz − |a|2 + āz
z − |a|2 z
= =z
1 − |a|2
shows simultaneously that, on C\ {a−1 }, fa acts as both left and right inverse to itself.
Thus, fa is a bijection on C\ {ā−1 }. It remains to show that fa maps D̄ onto D̄. We
will, in fact, prove a stronger result: fa maps T onto T and D onto D. To see this,
let u ∈ T. Then
¯ ¯
¯ a−u ¯ |a − u| |a − u|
¯
|fa (u)| = ¯ ¯= = = 1.
1 − āu ¯ −1
|−u(ā − u )| |−u| · |a − u|
It follows that fa (T) ⊂ T, and so, T = (fa ◦ fa )(T) ⊂ fa (T). These inclusions combine
to give fa (T) = T. Since is fa is nonconstant, we may deduce from the Maximum
Modulus Principle that |fa (z)| < sup {|fa (w)| : w ∈ ∂D = T} = 1, for every z ∈ D.
Thus, fa (D) ⊂ D. Applying fa to both sides reverses the inclusion, so that fa (D) = D.
(b) Put a := f −1 (0) ∈ D. Since f and fa are both conformal automorphisms of
D, it follows from the Chain Rule that f ◦ fa is also a conformal automorphism of
D. Moreover, (f ◦ fa )(0) = f [fa (0)] = f (a) = f [f −1 (0)] = 0; i.e., f fixes 0. Part (b)
of Problem 4.1 above yields u ∈ T such that (f ◦ fa )(z) = uz, for every z ∈ D. In
consequence, for every z ∈ D, we have
(c) fa and multiplication by u are both homemorphisms of D̄, and therefore, their
composition is a homeomorphism of D̄.
(d) This amounts to proving that if u, v ∈ T and a, b ∈ D and
then u = v and a = b. To verify that this is true, first observe that since (4.2.1) holds
a−b
for z = b, u 1−āb = 0. Since u 6= 0, we conclude that a − b = 0, and therefore, a = b.
29
Thus, for every z ∈ D, we have ufa (z) = vfa (z), or equivalently, (u − v)fa (z) = 0,
for every z ∈ D. Since fa is not the zero function, it must be that u − v = 0, and so,
u = v.
¤
∞
X
Problem 4.3. Suppose the series cn z n converges in D and the function f (z)
n=0
that it defines vanishes at k1 , for each k ∈ N. Prove that f ≡ 0.
contradicting our choice of N . So, our initial assumption is false, from which we infer
that cn = 0, for every n ∈ N0 , and so, f ≡ 0.
¤
30
Key terms: Open-Mapping Theorem, Maximum Modulus Principle, Fundamental
Theorem of Algebra, Bolzano-Weierstrass Theorem.
Solution. (a) Here is the terse version found in [RUD, 214]:
holds for every z ∈ Ω. Moreover, equality occurs at some point in Ω if and only if f
is constant on Ω̄.
(c) We may deduce (b) from (a) since no nonempty open subset of C contains an
element of maximum modulus. To see this, suppose Ω is an open subset of C and
z0 ∈ Ω. Since Ω is open, we may find r > 0 such that D(z0 , r) ⊂ Ω. Put
z0 + z0 r z0 6= 0
2|z0 |
z1 := .
r
2
z0 = 0
r
Direct computation shows that |z1 − z0 | = 2
, and therefore, z1 ∈ D(z0 , r) ⊂ Ω.
Moreover, we also have that |z1 | > |z0 |. In summary, for any point z0 ∈ Ω, we may
find another point z1 in Ω that has larger modulus than z0 ; i.e., Ω does not contain
a point of maximum modulus.
P
(d) Let p(z) := m k
k=0 ak z be a nonconstant polynomial, with am 6= 0 (m > 0),
and let K be a closed subset of the plane. Let w ∈ p(K). Choose a sequence
{wn } ⊂ p(K) such that wn → w. As, each wn ∈ p(K), we may find zn ∈ K such that
p(zn ) = wn . Now, the triangle inequality gives
¯ ¯
¯ m−1
X ¯ m−1
X
m ¯ k¯
|am | |z| = ¯p(z) − ak z ¯ ≤ |p(z)| + |ak | |z|k ,
¯ ¯
k=0 k=0
31
and therefore,
à m−1
!
X |ak |
(4.4.1) |z|m |am | − ≤ |p(z)| (z 6= 0).
k=0
|z|m−k
It follows easily from (4.4.1) that |p(z)| → ∞, as z → ∞, since am 6= 0. In conse-
quence, the sequence {zn }, must be bounded, for otherwise there would be infinitely
many n ∈ N such that |wn | = |p(zn )| > |w| + 1, contradicting that |wn | → |w|. Thus,
by the Bolzano-Weierstrass Theorem, we may find a subsequence {znl } that converges
to some element, say z, of K, since K is closed. Finally, from the continuity of p, we
get
³ ´
w = lim wnl = lim p(znl ) = p lim znl = p(z),
l→∞ l→∞ l→∞
32
Theorem 4.5.1. Let E be a Lebesgue measurable subset of R. Then the function
defined by fE (x) := |E ∩ (−x, x)|, for x ∈ [0, ∞), is a uniformly continuous map
taking [0, ∞) onto [0, |E|). Furthermore, lim fE (x) = |E|.
x→∞
R
Proof. Notice that we may write fE (x) = R
1E · 1(−x,x) . Let x, y ∈ [0, ∞).
Without loss of generality, assume x ≤ y. Observe
¯Z Z ¯ Z
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯
¯
|fE (x) − fE (y)| = ¯ 1E · 1(−x,x) − 1E · 1(−y,y) ¯¯ ≤ 1E ¯1(−x,x) − 1(−y,y) ¯
R R R
Z
£ ¤
= 1E 1(−y,−x) + 1(x,y) = |E ∩ (−y, −x)| + |E ∩ (x, y)|
R
≤ 2(y − x) = 2 |x − y| .
shows that lim fE (n) = 1E = |E|. As fE (0) = 0, we may deduce that fE maps
n→∞ R
[0, ∞) onto [0, |E|) from the Intermediate-Value Theorem.
¤
Proposition 4.5.2. Let {xn } ⊂ [0, ∞) and X a Lebesgue measurable set of infi-
nite measure. Then there exists a sequence {Xn } of pairwise disjoint Lebesgue mea-
surable subsets of X such that |Xn | = xn , for each n ∈ N.
Proof. Let fX be as in Theorem 4.5.1. Since fX maps [0, ∞) onto [0, |X|) =
[0, ∞), we may find x ∈ [0, ∞) such that X1 = X ∩ (−x, x) ⊂ X has measure
x1 . Assume inductively that we have found pairwise disjoint measurable subsets
X1 , ..., Xn of X such that |Xk | = xk , for 1 ≤ k ≤ n. By additivity, we have that
T P P P
|X| = |X ∩ ( nk=1 Xkc )| + nk=1 |Xk |. Since |X| = ∞ and nk=1 |Xk | = nk=1 xk < ∞,
T
it must be that |X ∩ ( nk=1 Xkc )| = ∞. Mimicking the construction of X1 , we may
T
find Xn+1 ⊂ X ∩ ( nk=1 Xkc ) ⊆ X such that |Xn+1 | = xn+1 . That Xn+1 is disjoint from
each Xk , 1 ≤ k ≤ n is obvious. This completes the induction and yields the desired
sequence of sets.
¤
33
Returning to Problem 4.5, by the results above, we may find a sequence {Xn } of
pairwise disjoint measurable subsets of X such that |Xn | = 2−n , for every n ∈ N.
X∞
Put f := n1Xn . Since f is nonnegative and since the Xn are pairwise disjoint,
n=1
∞
X
p p
it follows that |f | = f = np 1Xn . Thus, the Beppo-Levi Theorem and the ratio
n=1
test for series give
Z Z X∞ ∞ Z
X ∞
X ∞
X
p p p p
|f | = n 1Xn = n 1Xn = n |Xn | = np 2−n < ∞,
X X n=1 n=1 X n=1 n=1
whence f ∈ Lp (X).
To verify that f 6∈ L∞ (X), set SM := {x ∈ X : |f (x)| > M }, for M ≥ 0. Since
we may always find n ∈ N so large so that M < n and since |f | = f , we have that
SM ⊇ {x ∈ X : f (x) = n} = Xn .
By monotonicity, |SM | ≥ |Xn | = 2−n > 0, and consequently, the set {M : |SM | = 0}
is empty. Hence, the essential supremum kf k∞ = ∞, and therefore, f 6∈ L∞ (X).
¤
So, for every ² > 0, the set S² := {x ∈ X : |f (x)| > kf k∞ − ²} is nonempty, and
moreover, µ(S² ) > 0. Since |f | > kf k∞ − ² on S² , we have the following
Z Z
n n
0 < (kf k∞ − ²) µ(S² ) = (kf k∞ − ²) dµ ≤ |f |n dµ
S² S²
Z
≤ |f |n dµ = kf knn ,
X
34
for every n ∈ N, provided ² < kf k∞ . Taking the nth root gives
1
[µ(S² )] n (kf k∞ − ²) ≤ kf kn .
1
Since 0 < µ(S² ) ≤ µ(X) < ∞, we have that lim [µ(S² )] n = 1, whence
n→∞
kf k∞ − ² ≤ lim inf kf kn .
n→∞
For the reverse inequality, we recall that |f | ≤ kf k∞ a.e. Hence, |f |n ≤ kf kn∞ a.e.,
for each n ∈ N. So, we obtain
Z Z
n n
kf kn = |f | dµ ≤ kf kn∞ dµ = kf k∞ µ(X).
X X
35
or equivalently,
kf kn+1 αn+1
(4.6.4) 1 ≤ (n ∈ N).
[µ(X)] n+1 αn
1
Part (a) along with the fact that lim [µ(X)] n+1 = 1 (as µ(X) ∈ (0, ∞)) yields
n→∞
kf kn+1 αn+1
(4.6.5) kf k∞ = lim 1 ≤ lim inf ,
n→∞
[µ(X)] n+1 n→∞ αn
by (4.6.4). Consideration of (4.6.5) along side (4.6.2) shows that lim αn+1 /αn exists,
n→∞
and moreover, kf k∞ = lim αn+1 /αn .
n→∞
P∞ ¡ 1
¤
Problem 4.7. For p ∈ R, define hp := n=1 np 1In , where In := ,1
n+1 n
. Prove
(a) hp ∈ L1 (R), provided p < 1.
(b) h1 ∈ L1weak (R)\L1 (R).
(c) hp 6∈ L1weak (R), for p > 1.
In summary,
λ |Sλ | ≤ λ |SN | < λ(1/λ) = 1.
36
As λ ≥ 0 is arbitrary, we may take the supremum over all such λ to conclude that
h1 ∈ L1weak (R).
To see that h1 6∈ L1 (R), we note that the computation involved in (4.7.1) is valid
R P 1
for h1 . That is, h1 = n+1
. Since the series is not finite, neither is the integral.
(c) First, let us set some notation. For x ∈ R, we define [x] := max {n ∈ Z : n ≤ x}.
Now, analogous to the above, let Sλ := {x ∈ R : |hp (x)| > λ}. Fix p and λ and set
N := min {n ∈ N : np ≥ λ}. By definition, N p ≥ λ, while (N − 1)p < λ. Now,
`
x ∈ SN if and only if hp (x) = |hp (x)| > N if and only if x ∈ ∞ n=[N 1/n ]+1 In so that
`∞
SN = n=[N 1/n ]+1 In , and therefore, |SN | = [N 1/p1 ]+1 . Since N ≥ λ, SN ⊆ Sλ , and so,
1
(N − 1)p (N − 1)p (N/2)p N p− p
λ |Sλ | ≥ λ |SN | > 1 ≥ 1 ≥ 1 = p+1 .
[N p ] + 1 [N p ] + 1 2N p 2
37
CHAPTER 5
Spring 2006
Key terms: finite measure space, Lp -space, Hölder’s Inequality, Lebesgue Measure,
conjugate exponent.
Solution. (a) Clearly, we may assume that r < s, so that 1 < rs . Put p := s
r
and let
q be its conjugate exponent.
For f ∈ Ls (X), Hölder’s inequality gives
Z Z ·Z ¸1/p ·Z ¸1/q
r r r p q
|f | dµ = |f | · 1X dµ ≤ (|f | ) 1X dµ
X X X X
·Z ¸1/p ·Z ¸1/q
= |f |rp 1X dµ = kf krs · [µ(X)]1/q < ∞.
X X
Consequently, f ∈ Lr (X). As this is true for each f ∈ Ls (X), the conclusion follows.
(b) Let X := [1, ∞), A := Lebesgue measurable subsets of [1, ∞), and µ :=
Lebesgue measure. Then for f (x) := x1 , we have
Z Z ∞
2 1
|f | dµ = dx = 1,
X 1 x2
while
Z Z ∞
1
|f | dµ = dx = ∞.
X 1 x
Hence, in this situation, we see that L (X) 6⊆ L1 (X), even though 1 ≤ 2.
2
Problem 5.2. Let A, B ⊆ R be Lebesgue measurable and define h(x) := |(A − x) ∩ B|.
R
Show that (a) h is a Lebesgue measurable function; and, (b) R h(x)dx = |A| |B|.
38
Key terms: measurable function, measurable set, convolution, Lebesgue’s Monotone
Convergence Theorem, Fubini’s Theorem, translation invariance.
Solution. For n ∈ N, define An := A ∩ (−n, n) and Bn := B ∩ (−n, n). Notice that
|An | , |Bn | ≤ 2n < ∞ so that 1An , 1Bn ∈ L1 (R). Consequently, by Theorem 8.14 in
[RUD] (the Convolution Theorem), the function given by
Z
hn (x) := 1An (x + y)1Bn (y)dy
R
so that h(x) = lim hn (x). Since x is arbitrary, we conclude that h is the pointwise
n→∞
limit of a sequence of measurable functions, and so, h is measurable.
To show (b), we first notice that
holds for each x, y ∈ R. Combining this with Fubini’s Theorem and the translation-
invariance of Lebesgue measure gives
Z Z ·Z ¸ Z ·Z ¸
h(x)dx = 1A−x (y)1B (y)dy dx = 1A−x (y)1B (y)dx dy
R R R R R
Z ·Z ¸ Z
= 1A−y (x)dx 1B (y)dy = |A − y| 1B (y)dy
R R R
Z Z
= |A| 1B (y)dy = |A| 1B (y)dy = |A| |B| .
R R
39
Problem 5.3. Let A be a σ-algebra on a set X and assume µ : A → [0, ∞] has
the following properties:
40
n−1
[
pairwise disjoint, the sets Bm and An are disjoint, provided n ≥ 2. So, for each
m=1
n ≥ 2, we have
à ∞
! "Ã n−1 ! # Ã n−1 ! n−1
[ [ [ X
µ Bm =µ Bm ∪ An = µ Bm + µ(An ) = µ(Bm ) + µ(An ).
m=1 m=1 m=1 m=1
are Lebesgue measurable and pairwise disjoint. Note that since s vanishes outside a
set of finite measure, each Ak has finite measure. Thus, for every such simple function,
we have
Z Z "X
m
#
lim s(x)h(nx)dx = lim αk 1Ak (x) h(nx)dx
n→∞ R n→∞ R k=1
m
X · Z ¸
(5.4.1) = αk lim 1Ak (x)h(nx)dx
n→∞ R
k=1
= 0.
Now, let f ∈ L1 (R) and let M ≥ 0 be a finite bound for h. Fix ² > 0. By Theorem
3.13 in [RUD], we may find a complex, measurable, simple function s that vanishes
outside a set of finite measure such that kf − sk1 < ²/M . Now, for each n ∈ N, we
41
have
¯Z ¯ ¯Z Z ¯
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯
¯ f (x)h(nx)dx¯ = ¯ [f (x) − s(x)]h(nx)dx + s(x)h(nx)dx¯
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯
R R R
Z ¯Z ¯
¯ ¯
(5.4.2) ≤ |f (x) − s(x)| |h(nx)| dx + ¯ s(x)h(nx)dx¯¯
¯
R R
¯Z ¯
¯ ¯
≤ M kf − sk1 + ¯¯ s(x)h(nx)dx¯¯
R
¯Z ¯
¯ ¯
< ² + ¯¯ s(x)h(nx)dx¯¯ .
R
by the continuity of the absolute value function. The proof is completed by letting
² → 0.
¤
(a) L ∈ H(Ω).
(b) There is no continuous map on D0 that acts as a right inverse for the expo-
nential map on D0 .
Key terms: exponential map, complex differentiability, index of a closed curve (with
respect to a point), Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, complex logarithm.
Solution. (a) Note that since ez is never zero, we may deduce that 0 6∈ Ω. Now,
fix z ∈ Ω and h ∈ C\ {0}. Notice that L must be injective, for if L(a) = L(b), then
L(z+h)−L(z)
a = eL(a) = eL(b) = b. Thus, h
6= 0, and therefore,
· ¸−1 · ¸−1
L(z + h) − L(z) (z + h) − z eL(z+h) − eL(z)
= =
h L(z + h) − L(z) L(z + h) − L(z)
· ¸−1
eL(z)+H(h) − eL(z)
= ,
H(h)
42
where H(h) := L(z + h) − L(z). Since L is assumed continuous, we have H(h) → 0,
as h → 0. Combining this with the continuity of the map w 7→ w−1 on C\ {0} and
the fact that ez is its own derivative yields
· L(z)+H(h) ¸−1 · ¸−1
L(z + h) − L(z) e − eL(z) eL(z)+H(h) − eL(z)
lim = lim = lim
h→0 h h→0 H(h) h→0 H(h)
£ L(z) ¤−1
= e = z −1 .
Problem 5.6. Let f and g be entire functions such that |f | ≤ |g|. Prove
43
f
hz be an extension of g
to a holomorphic function on D(z, rz ). Note that |hz | ≤ 1,
f
since this is true for g
on D0 (z, rz ) and since hz is continuous (it is holomorphic) on
D(z, rz ).
f (z)
g(z)
z 6∈ Z(g)
Now, define h : C → C by h(z) = . Clearly, h is differentiable
hz (z) z ∈ Z(g)
at every z in the open set C\Z(g). Furthermore, for z ∈ Z(g), h and hz agree in the
neighborhood D(z, rz ) of z, where hz is holomorphic, and so, h is also differentiable
at z. We conclude that h is an entire function. Moreover, the conditions on f and
g and the fact that |hz | ≤ 1, for all z ∈ Z(g), ensure that |h| ≤ 1. By Liouville’s
Theorem, we deduce that h is some constant c. The very definition of h thus gives
that f (z) = cg(z), for all z 6∈ Z(g). Yet |f | ≤ |g| implies that f (z) = 0 = c · 0 = cg(z),
for all z ∈ Z(g). So, we actually have f (z) = cg(z), for all z ∈ C.
¤
or equivalently,
Z R Z
1
(5.7.1) dx = − f (z)dz + 2πi [Res(f, z0 ) + Res(f, z1 )] .
−R x4 + 1 γR
44
¯R ¯
¯ ¯
Clearly, the above inequality implies that ¯ γR f (z)dz ¯ → 0, as R → ∞. Applying
this fact to (5.7.1) we may conclude that
Z ∞
1
(5.7.2) 4
dx = 2πi [Res(f, z0 ) + Res(f, z1 )] .
−∞ x + 1
So,
¡ ¢ ¡ ¢
exp −i 3π
4
+ exp −i 9π
4 −2i sin (π/4) i
Res(f, z0 ) + Res(f, z1 ) = = =− √ .
4 4 2 2
Substitution of this into (5.7.2) gives the desired result.
(b) Let γ be the closed curve given by θ 7→ eiθ , for θ ∈ [0, 2π]. Then
Z 2π Z z
−iθ iθ e
(5.7.3) e exp(e )dθ = −i 2
dz.
0 γ z
Problem 5.8. Let S := {z ∈ C : 0 < Re z < 2} and for each z ∈ S let lz (t) :=
tz + 1 − t, for 0 ≤ t ≤ 1. Without assuming that a primitive of f exists, show that
R
F (z) := lz f defines a holomorphic function in S such that F 0 = f . Explain why the
conclusion fails whenever f is not holomorphic.
45
Theorem 5.8.1 (Cauchy’s Theorem in a Convex Set). Let f be a function defined
on a convex open subset Ω of C. Show that f ∈ H(Ω) if and only if there exists
F ∈ H(Ω) such that F 0 = f .
= F (z0 ) − F (z).
46
Index
47
Maximum Modulus Principle, 12, 20, 27, 28, uniform continuity, 32
31 Uniqueness Theorem for Holomorphic
measurable Functions, 22
function, 4, 39
variation
set, 5, 39
bounded, 10
measure
total, 10
positive, 34, 40
measure space
weak Lp , 36
complete, 5
Well-Ordering Principle (in N), 30
finite, 26, 34, 38
metric space zero-set, 20, 43
complete, 7
Morera’s Theorem, 1
negligible set, 5
Open-Mapping Theorem, 31
p-test, 36
polar coordinates, 15, 16
pole, 3, 11, 18, 44
power series, 22, 30
ratio test, 32
residue, 3, 11, 18
Residue Theorem, 3, 18, 44
rotation, 27
Schwarz Lemma, 27
σ-algebra, 40
simple function, 41
singularity
removable, 11, 27, 43
translation invariance, 39
48
Bibliography
49